Many in academia claim Gilgamesh and Enkidu, as well as Achilles and Patroclus, are “homosexuals" in some way comparable to modern “homosexuals”. Specifically, it was claimed to me that butt-sex added to the “tragedy” of these characters, and it frustrated me I could not argue against this game of intellectual whack-a-mole ,pointing to a lack of character on my part. Yet it still seemed wrong. But Why?

[It seemed wrong because it is wrong, when some modern materialist who is frustrated because he was not born a woman and no man has done him the mercy of slaying him, tries to equate primal masculine archetypes with postmodern degeneracy. The God Father orders the goddess to create Enkidu as a rival to Gilgamesh because Gilgamesh is taking the flower of every virgin in Uruk. Gilgamesh is told by the Goddess whose priestess seduces Enkidu that he should take the Wildman like a wife after he is told that the Wildman is his “other half.” Bro, this is about the warrior respecting the hunter within, the king reuniting with the chief within, the Wildman and the big man realizing that they are brothers and are one within. We have a problem, not Gilgamesh and Enkidu. A good way to consider this is to look at Samson in Judges. The ancient authors of Scripture did not erase homosexual themes as indicated by the fag gang that assailed Lot. When the scriptures deal with Gilgamesh and Enkidu, they do so in one unified person, Samson, the Wildman who loses his power when his hair is cut and whose downfall is a whore.]

My questions are

1. Assuming Gilgamesh and Achilles were homosexuals, is their homosexuality analogous to modern “homosexuality”, or is it different?

2. Suppose Achilles ran into Calypso on her island instead of Odysseus. Would he have succeeded in putting that witch bitch in her place?

3. Is there an analogous work to the Odyssey that came after the epic of Gilgamesh, in fiction or history?

4. Have you met with the father? The one who lives in the sky of course.

[-1. I would not assume homosexuality. If it was present in ancient Aryan culture, as it was in Hellas, among a certain percentage which I suspect to be 30% it would be characterized by a similarity to the samurai practice, which is temporary relations between a patron and his protégé that takes place in a military context in which warriors are long separated from women. Only with the Theban Sacred Band, who Alexander butchered to the last man, do we have married homos in ancient warrior societies. Furthermore, this is not flamboyant imitation of the female. Do note, that in late stage Hellas and in Hellenized Rome you had some degenerate homo-shit, like Philostratus’ ‘Love Letters to a Boy.’ These periods equate very neatly to ours with such homosexual indicators that the society is dying as:]

[-Celibacy among prominent men, such as saints, who are essentially race traitors]

[-Hatred of women, which can only come from weakness in men, like a child developing a hatred for stuffed animals]

[-Low birthrate]

[-Female sexual adventure as a literary/social theme, basically the whole of modern fiction and script writing]

[-Atheism]

[-Feminine beauty standards that approximate the quality of teenage boys, such as fear and disgust of large breasts and big asses]

[-Sex slavery of boys]

[-2. The gods conspired in the Trojan War to slay Achilles so that he would rape no goddess! And hence the goddess in her immediate forms must by trickster-dealt by the new duplicitous hero of strength clothed in cunning. In my opinion, the best Aryan myth was written in 1932 by Robert E. Howard and is titled, The Frost Giant’s Daughter. Read it to understand why the Gods slew Achilles in alliance with his king.

[-3. The Argonautica by two authors 400 years later, and various works in Latin from late antiquity including a version of the Argonautica by a certain Flaccus, the Aeniad, the Dionysica and Beowulf. I’m trying to reread and annotate them all. But there is very little interest among readers and my eyes are wearing out. The relevant tags are on the page above.

[-4. I suspect that my creation was either an accident that needs redacted or a punishment and remain fine with not knowing. Ignorance is bliss as a storied knucklehead once said of his own obtuseness.]

. I had my doubts about this statement of yours “Dude, they cannot handle reality .....Modern Democratic Western Society is based on one thing .......women do not understand power......emasculating men to the point that most of them also do not understand power”.

I believe your characterization of me as a big brained nimbus at the time was correct, it was part of my previously mentioned lack of character. I went on trying to point women towards the reality of this society being rotten, mentioning Achilles here and there. It seemed they always missed the basic premise, adding seemingly irrelevant points. Granted, it didn't matter with her face on the mattress afterwards, but it still bothered me that I felt so alienated even with as many big titties in my face as I could want, that these DD's (the pair I inquired about) and J cups could not understand me.

[J! bring her to the altar! Yes sir. I may not have met with the Father in his grey skies, but I, like you, have communed with the Goddess!]

[Look, the most troubling aspect of late stage civilized collapse is the emasculating impulse of atomized men to try and seek understanding among women. Women are designed to bring to life and nurture ascendant human minds, not to develop such a consciousness and they will—almost all of them—resent big brained types trying to train up their intelligence to the point where they can see how fucked up the world is, because they cannot handle the reality that the world is here to torment and kill us, not nurture and fulfill us.

[Why would you want to shatter the mind of some luscious creature who consented to your conquest? You should protect her from reality and let her harbor her soul-shielding delusions, not put a thought to big for her to contain in her dainty little brain. Send JJ to me for reeducation post-haste!! It is my patriarchal responsibility, so don’t gush on about my selfless altruism. I’m old but still willing to take one for the team!

[Any man that lets the women in his life see the darkness of reality reflected out of his mind and into theirs has done a huge disservice to her, himself and their kind by discouraging her from her purpose. This takes us back to Gilgamesh and Enkidu, the fact that brotherhood is where true friendship and understanding resides, not between men and women. At the same time, women being obsessed with obtaining a “best friend” from among men is a similar symptom.

[Worst, is placing a woman on a pedestal as a goddess. This is tragically where hatred for women comes from amongst the men of late stage civilization, it comes from unappreciated worship of a creature who was not a divinity after all, but a human female. The most emasculated expression of this is the term SIMP, used now by late stage Aryan men in imitation of post-apocalyptic African American men, who have suffered more total emasculation than any race in human history and blow each other at ridiculous levels. Please, erase SIMP from your vocabulary if you have fallen into that trap, a trap that takes the goddess off the pedestal and places her at the gates of hell when she just belongs on her altar, working her loom and easing the rest stage of your irksome day, a day that if she comprehended in its entirety, would shatter her mind and render her incapable of her purpose.]

I did not understand power at this point. I had not met the father yet. It seems almost obvious to me now, Achilles and Gilgamesh are not “gay” in the modern egotistical sense of pretending sodomy is an act of union between two spirits. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Shamhat is a whore, her sexuality is something weaponized against Enkidu to suck him in to the lie of Uruk. Most women play the role of Shamhat, knowingly or unknowingly. Like some bizzare form of crawling back into the womb, these whores gain tremendous power because they can nourish and protect the ego of emasculated men who are unwilling to step outside themselves. Inside the womb of the biggest whore civilization, men who cannot find this better half in women turn to each other to find the forms of the father in the world of things. Whether or not Enkidu got fucked in the ass by Gilgamesh seems irrelevant (or Patroclus by Achilles), the tragedy is that they were driven to such lengths to find themselves within such a corrupt existence, not that one of the butt-lovers died.

[A clutch secret to the mechanisms of civilization is its draping of power in the vestments of service and goodness and distorting its nature to achieve willful misunderstanding. This elicits paralyzing emotions in response to perceived betrayal. Much like a deer becoming angry at his protector, the tiger, inexplicably turning on him in his moment of need, mischaracterizing to his last breath the drive for power to feed.]

Odysseus doesn't strike me as “homosexual”. He seemed able to tame Calypso, because he understood the soul beneath the mask of flesh we wear, what women really are, which seemed to plague Gilgamesh and Achilles leading to their homosexuality. Odysseus had to play the role of beggar, king, and everything in between because he knew honor meant nothing in Greece post Trojan war, there was no point in dying for the masks of this world.

[I consider the homosexual angle in these texts to have been played up in degenerate ages, including some ancient low points, such as in Hellenistic Egypt circa 200 B.C.]

I have not completed reading your book “When you're food”, but from what I've read you seem like an Odysseus who had to navigate a world where what most people took for granted in things like honor, civility, etc collapsed, and you had to “meet the father” within yourself to survive the hellscape of Baltimore, which I now see the beginnings of in [Diversity-is-our-strength]. Every demonized boy and forgotten disposable male, every abused girl and whore woman, I see the seeds from which monsters are born.

One last observation. It seems Socrates was to Aristotle what Achilles was to Odysseus. The former in both pairs died for seemingly mistaking the forms for material things, or mistaking the mask for the soul which wears it. The latter two seemed to have found it in another form, not dying for the ideals projected unto these concepts that Ajax or Achilles did. Both these pairs seem analogous as well in their timing at the end of the cycle. Mycenae would never rise to the power it once held after the Trojan war, similar to how after Alexander, the Greece Aristotle found himself in would be of interest as a footnote to the beginnings of Rome. In your case, it seems Baltimore was the place of revelation. I believe without some chance happenings in my own life, I would be a soy person. Perhaps the revelations you had are the truest sign of the end of this cycle. This last paragraph I will return to once I finish “when you're food”, as it seems to have arrived at a higher truth. The tongue in buttcheck claim everyone in the epics was gay ended up being tangentially related to this.

[Alexander and Aristotle died at the cusp of ages, each having built upon the tragedies of the dying age to usher in the new. For my part, When You’re Food, which was rejected by Paladin press twice, was anathema to their age as it addressed your dawning age by a transitional man. It was the personal expression of what I learned from 1982-2001 and had studied intensively from 1996 to 2000 in The Fighting Edge and The Logic of Steel and the Logic of Force. I had written all four books by 2001, with The Logic of Force held onto by the publisher for a decade and redactions demanded to save the ego of Marc “Animal’ MacYoung and other Paladin standouts complaining about my inability to do high level math. For the record I never passed a single math test in 10 years of school or completed a single quiz. I’d usually manage to get 3 in 20 equations done with varying degrees of success.

[I rewrote When You’re Food and The Logic of Force in September 2010 and then When You’re Food was rejected. So, I added some to it in January 2011 and it was published on this site and later in print. In, I think 2014, Mescaline Franklin and I added 40 pages as a Q & A as he thought this book to be my most important work. That last version is When You’re Food: Raw, which I send to anyone who buys the 2011 version.

[For me, the writing of When You’re Food is a simple case of tracking my own awakening from a slavish slumber of frantic toil to the reality that the sacred and worshipped Whore who I served was a monster into whose oven of a gut I was shoveling my devalued soul one appeasing act at a time. I still believe that I am just food and have not given up the quest to rise from the plate where I was long ago marinated in hate.

[Thank you, Carlos, for your interest. As thinkers go, I regard myself as something of a stumblebum.]